Company of Heroes

Fantastic article Hillhome! This is something I've thought about as well - it's a topic that has come up several times with my friends when playing Street Fighter et al. It's not uncommon for a player to get thrown off by something in the match (missing an easy combo, getting hit by a wake-up super) and then proceed to throw away a lead or even an easy victory because they got shaken. The players who kept it together and exploit the psychology of the situation would usually come out on top.

We found that if a player succeeded with an unlikely tactic (using a weird throw set-up, for example) that would sometimes make "a chink in the armor" of the other player's mind, and then the first player could go on and repeat the same unlikely tactic several times in a row, and have it miraculously work each time. The difference between success and failure in that case was always how mentally tough the receiving player was at that moment.

Made me think of gogy

It's a very nice article and it's definitely useful. Not blaming imbaness is hard, especially when you lose vs PE. For example:
Today I got completely hammered by a PE player while I was US. I quit frustrated and go back into automatch hoping to get a more balanced matchup. And that's a flaw. I quit out of frustration, and I blamed the fact that PE is stronger than US.
In the automatch I got an opponent, and lo and behold, the guy who just defeated me is my opponent again.
At this point, I picked myself up and had to literally churn out the words "gl hf to you too", instead of some snide remark like "you're PE, you don't need luck". Well, I still made a remark about him probably already haven chosen Luftwaffe and that that was too strong, but I kept myself in hand.
So I change my strategy, start off fresh, play like I know I can play, kill his first gewehr 43 squad with just an engi squad and a jeep, after using the jeep to kill his kettenrad, then proceed to kill his first scout car with a rifle squad and said jeep.
Getting back on topic:
He made the mistake of thinking I was easy to beat (which I was last game, he definitely outplayed me), while I keep the frustration of the last match at a distance and focus on the game instead of focusing on the last game.
Point is that it is important to never underestimate your opponent, but also never to underestimate yourself, and that last thing is someting your article made very clear Hillhome

Now, in my experience, there's a pitfall you haven't mentioned in your article, so I'll mention it here. I'm speaking of own experience (yet again, sorry if I sound self-centered).
It is critical that while you are fighting your own doubts and fears, that you know the game. You need to know what is possible about how fast a quad can come out, how volks should fight rifles, and a whole lotta other things (i'm sorry, whole lotta rosie just came up in winamp).
If you do not know the game, then you do not know what capabilities each faction has, how you should counter something should you encounter it, but also, if you do not know the game, you do not know what your enemy can do. Then you will think of possible actions your enemy can make, but draw that information from previous games you played, rather than from the game itself. If you have been beaten by fast quad a lot of times, you shouldn't expect a fast quad the moment he has upgraded to BARs. If a fast Panzer IV killed you, that doesn't mean that the opponent you have now has the resources or the teching to build that. Just because it is possible in general, to see whether it is possible in the game you are playing at the moment you need to look at the information you gather of your opponent. Did he go for fast fuel, is there an OP on a fuel, did you cut him off often so he can't tech, is he investing too much manpower in rifle squads to be able to tech at the same time?
What I'm trying to say is that if you apply all worst-case scenarios that you have experienced to the game you are playing, you might better quit the game and think. Think of the cause of the worst-case scenario, such as not using your manpower well and losing map control, and then try to improve those things, and you will find that those worst-case scenarios will cease to exist.

I might not be able to explain things as good as Hillhome but I hope that anyone who read this chunk of text catches my drift and I hope it helps them a little bit too.

That's a really good point Shock. I think I may have taken it for granted that around here most of us know those things about the game and perhaps I should not have.

Maybe a future article by someone eh?

Well-done.

I go and play and want to win - so I do.

This is ignorant and over-simplified. An article written on this mentality would be full of unhelpful cliches based on an obsolete model of success that sees mistakes as something that should never happen, rather than an opportunity to improve.

This mentality also lends itself to the idea that you either have "it" or you don't. After all, there are many people who "play to win" but lose.

Over-complicating a situation is a surefire way to have it backfire on you. Simple is good, simple is effective and simple is easily repeated.

rofl

Very nice article though, very well-written and very informative.

This post has been edited by `Imrahil: Nov 4 2007, 14:58 PM

13azor, you nubcake

Staying mentally focussed is probably the weakest part of my game. I have a tendency to get frustrated, particularly with a few of the games obvious imbalances and blame losses on that. I remember I absolutely lit up and dished it out to some guy who tried to tell me blobbing Rangers took skill, which not to hit people who abuse it, but it's a broken unit right now.

So yeah, moral of the story --> Flying off the handle is never good and neither is getting discouraged. After all, every person who plays this game is human, except for 12azor, so you know they can only move as fast at their peak as you can and that's not what will make or break the game unless the difference is huge.

You forgot one bud, Simple is NOT easy.

There's a huge difference between something that is simple and something that is easy. Look at baseball. You stand next to home plate to hit a ball someone throws at you. Very simple concept. Quite difficult to pull of at the higher levels of the game.

Nice article hillhome, very interesting.

Very good article, but as its a book on failing, everything does not apply to war and battle, like this:

"Expecting the best in everything – not the worst"

Now, i would usually apply "Expect the worst" to a battle in CoH, always have a backup plan, dont expect that your flank is going to work, expect that it is going to fail, and have a plan B to back it up accordingly.

but aside from that, i really think this was an exquisite article

Plan B: If you can’t master your Mental MoJo, then just play the game in an “altered state” of mind

Seriously, nice write-up HH. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and what you are learning from the book. Maxwell is known for his series of books on leadership.

As for contentment, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “content” as:
1 : to appease the desires of
2 : to limit (oneself) in requirements, desires, or actions

And, “contended” as:
1 : feeling or showing satisfaction with one's possessions, status, or situation

At 37 years old I have the luxury to look back and put things in perspective. I started playing CoH for the fun and to be challenged by an RTS game (rather then first person shooters). I first played the single player campaigns, and then I went on-line and started playing against other people in team matches. I was compelled by the 1v1 matches as a way to test my skill versus other players. Soon this game (for fun) turned into a competitive situation. Shortly thereafter, I realized I will never be a top player (many reasons for this); however, I want to improve my performance and challenge myself to get better. So I am willing to be content with “my rank/status” within the CoH community but not necessarily content with my game play. That is, I will never be known as a top player, but I will continue to improve my game so that at least the person who plays me will expect the match to be well played.

Once again, good job HH.

Bingo.

@warhawks
why cant u be top player?

its not starcraft, i bet we will have some new talents after 5 months after OF relase!

Great article, Hillhome.

If you enjoyed this article, I recommend the book 'Mindset: The New psychology of success' by Caroll S. Dweck.

I would also recommend 'From Good to Great' by Jim Collins. The first chapter is the most applicable as he writes about "level 5 leadership". The book is an examination into what characteristics companies who went from mediocraty to greatness have in common.

I ordered Maxwell's book 'Failing Forward'. thanks again

This post has been edited by Bohmeester: Nov 7 2007, 21:28 PM

But getting the self knowledge to be able to change your mindset to such a degree isn't that easy either, at least if you don't want a lot of artifacts plaguing your conscious creating a huge strain.

But if you can, then all you have to do is remove all emotions concerning the game except for the emotion that "Improving->Good", "repeating mistakes->bad", and to be able to continue playing the game long enough to compete you also need "CoH->good" in there.

The "altered state of mind" I was referring to was to just play the game while being hammered

New definition for GUI

GUI = (Gaming Under the Influence)



For starters, it comes down to time, that is, the time needed to know all the maps and fractions, the ins and outs of each. I just can't dedicate the time needed. Even with the time put in, that doesn't guarantee success, at the end of the day it will just come down to gaming skill and I just don't know if I have what it takes to be A TOP player. This doesn't mean I can't be a very good player and hold my own, but just not in the top.

Hey thanks for the references, I'll check them out. I'm always looking for books on leadership! I'll probably go check out some more Maxwell stuff soon as well (once I get some cash) and I'll add those to my list of books to get!




LOL at the GUI thing man, that's awesome. Also, I'm with you on the time thing. If I was single and had a normal 8 - 5 job ya I'm sure that I could be darn good at this game. But I'm married and an ordained minister. One thing I don't have a lot of is free time. Meetings most evenings, spending time with the wife, studying/reading, work 8 -5 + weekends (Saturday night/Sunday Morning), not to mention visits, hospital calls, etc...

So I play when I can and I wrote the article more for myself because I often get frustrated when I'm losing simply because I know that with more practice time I wouldn't make those same mistakes as much and I would know the maps and strategies much better. I can maybe get in like 4 - 6 games a week, which just isn't really enough to be competitive with

Great to see so many people checking out the article and I really do appreciate all the feedback! Makes me want to go write another one